When I have a question about liturgy, I know I can always rely on Dr. Richard Sarason, Professor of Rabbinic Literature and Thought at HUC, to answer my question. So I e-mailed him a link to this post wondering if I actually knew what the hell I was talking about in this post. Here’s his response:

"David—
The “heikhi kedushah” custom to which you refer is North American Conservative, though based (if I recall correctly) on SOME medieval opinions. I have never seen this done in Orthodox minyanim, since halakhically speaking, there is never any abbreviation of the reader’s repetition of the Amidah, for either Shaharit or Musaf. (The issue of Mei’ein Sheva on Friday night is different: there is never a reader’s repetition of the Amidah in the evening service, but this is compromised ONLY on Erev Shabbat, allowing for an abbreviated reader’s repetition: Magen Avot, preceded–following Babylonian custom–with an abbreviated Avot and followed by the last paragraph of Kedushat Hayom.) The “heikhi kedushah” custom originates (again, as far as I know) in Conservative congregations more recently as a way of dealing with the double repetition of the Amidah at Shaharit and Musaf. The Shaharit Amidah is handled traditionally (recited silently, then a full reader’s repetition); the Musaf Amidah is not. Instead, the entire congregation recites Avot and Gevurot together with the Sh’liah Tzibbur, followed by the Kedushah. At that point, the congregation is seated and the rest of the Amidah is chanted by the Sh’liah Tzibbur; what is omitted is the silent recitation. This mimics traditional “choreography” because after the silent Amidah, the congregation again stands for the reader’s repetition through the Kedushah, and then sits down (since the halakhic obligation, once the Amidah has been recited silently standing, is to stand only for the Kedushah–which cannot be recited silently because it is a communal rather than a private obligation).

"Reform custom has varied from place to place and time to time. Most recently in the US, the Union Prayer Book had the congregation stand ONLY for the Kedushah—but all of the Amidah was recited (mostly by the service leader) or sung out loud. Only the “silent prayer” was recited silently. GOP has the congregation stand for Avot, Gevurot, and Kedushah, and then be seated. But there, too, it is not the case that the rest of the Amidah is to be recited silently. The book never gives such a direction and it was always understood by the editor that the rest would be recited out loud. MT, of course, gives no directions about standing or sitting during any part of the Amidah, preferring to leave that to local custom.

"There are indeed Reform congregations in which some parts of the Shabbat Amidah after the congregation sits after the Kedushah are recited silently. Such a practice runs against all liturgical logic. Kedushat Hayom, the liturgical centerpiece of the Shabbat Amidah, should always be recited out loud–because that’s what the Shabbat Amidah is all about!! A mixture of silent and communal recitation of the Shabbat Amidah makes no sense at all. (It is more common in a Reform weekday service to see the first three benedictions recited/chanted out loud, and then the rest of the Amidah recited silently, on account of the length of the petitionary sequence. That practice is liturgically defensible as a compromise—-but NOT on Shabbat. I always tell our students here NEVER to have the Shabbat Kedushat Hayom benediction recited silently.)

"Reform congregations, rabbis, and other service leaders indeed need to be thoughtful about their performance practices, so as not to violate the logic of the liturgical structures themselves.

"Shavua tov and Shanah tovah,
Richard Sarason"

Rare though it may be, sometimes Reform Jews daven alone. Are we comfortable with a single person davening a full service alone? Reading Torah to no one but their own self? If we are not comfortable with that, and I for one am not, than where do we draw the line? How many people is enough? There is no need to re-invent the wheel here. We can go on using ten as the number.

And BTW, I can't stand this Torah=person thing. It's a Torah. It's not a person.

Apologies for my harsh tone.

Shanah Tovah!

Your flippancy is 100% appreciated, Larry. Well said as always.

But there's meaning beyond What David Likes Here. We make a point that Judaism is not a religion of the individual--it's a religion of communities. Like you said, Larry, "Kol Yisrael arevim zeh lazeh." One of the ways we make that point is by saying that there are some things that a person can do, while there are some things that only a community can do. It sends a message about what you can achieve with a community that an individual cannot.

So if we wanna make that point, again I say, we have to draw a line somewhere. And the number ten seems just as good a place as any to draw that line.

Jenn B's suggestion for an appendix to MT with guidelines for the absence of a minyan sent me to the CCAR website for a reading on the movement's attitude in general toward the minyan requirement. The consensus falls short of demanding a minyan, but certainly urges one.

The most inclusive statement I found is at http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=17&year=5752.

To oversimplify, if you're going to invoke the absence of a minyan as cause for omitting elements of the service, it's kaddish, kedusha, and Torah reading.

Re Jenn's reference to those who feel that the rules are for other denominations...our rabbinate -- or at least our most prominent decisors -- don't seem to be buying that, even as they may accept some leniency, especially when it comes to denying a mourner the consolation of kaddish. (There are reference to heeding Pirkei Avot, when two gather to study Torah, and to the quorum of three for the full birkat hamazon -- and other historic leniencies.)

But the bottom line supports David -- ten adults (egalitarianism goes back a long way). Ken yehi -- so may it be.

I hope that the following comments will be helpful in the discussion about minyanim.

The word “minyan” refers to the quorum of ten Jews over the age of 13 who constitute the minimal number of people needed to have a complete service. Certain prayers can only be recited with such a quorum because they require communal affirmation. According to halakha (Jewish law), a minyan is required for many parts (D'varim SheB'Kedusha "holy utterances") of the communal prayer service, including Barechu, various forms of the Kaddish (including the Kaddish Yatom, the mourner’s Kaddish Kaddish), the Kedusha in the Amidah, repetition of the Amidah, the Priestly Blessing, and the Torah and Haftarah readings, prayers that affirm divine sanctity. Judaism cannot exist in isolation – community is everything - and a minyan represents the whole community.

WHY TEN?

What is so magical about the number ten? Its origin is in the story in the book of Numbers where ten spies come back with a negative report about the Promised Land, causing a commotion that leads to the Israelites having to wander in the Wilderness for 40 years. In the story, only two spies, Joshua and Caleb, are optimistic about their chances. According to traditional Jewish law, the smallest congregation which is permitted to hold public worship is one made up of ten men over the age of majority (13 years). The rule comes from the Mishnah (Megillah 4:3): "They do not recite over the Shema Yisrael (Hear, O Israel), nor pass before the Ark, nor lift their hands, nor read from the Law, nor conclude with the Prophets, nor arrange the standing and sitting, nor say the benedictions of the mourners or the consolation of the mourners, nor the benedictions of the bridegrooms, nor use God's name in preparing for grace after meals, with less than ten." The Babylonian Talmud, in commenting on this section of the Mishnah, finds the Biblical authority for ten men constituting a congregation in the words (from Numbers 14:27): "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation which murmur against me?" which refers to the twelve scouts who were sent to spy out the land of Canaan, two of whom were considered faithful, and ten "this [evil] congregation." The ten pessimists then testify before the Israelite community or “edah.” (The Hebrew word for “community” is “edah” from which comes from the word in Hebrew for “witness.”

The Rabbis later deduced that the minimal definition of what it takes to have a community, a group that bears witness to God, is this number ten. It is ironic that it was a frightened, pessimistic, somewhat faithless group of ten spies that led to this definition! As a Jewish folk saying puts it, nine revered rabbis do not make up a minyan, but ten cobblers do!

TRADITIONALLY…

…Jewish law and custom required Jews over the age of majority (both women and men) to pray three times a day. Although prayer alone has always been considered acceptable, prayer with a quorum of ten adults (a minyan) is considered prayer with the community, and this is the most highly recommended form of prayer. Originally, all male Jews over 13, unless they had openly severed their connection with their community by converting to another religion, were counted in the minyan. (Shulkhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, 55, 12). Traditional codes of Jewish law do not forbid women from counting in a minyan, and a small number of classical rabbinic responsa mention this as a theoretical possibility. However, until recently it does not appear that this was ever a normative practice of the Jewish community.
(adapted from Rabbi Joshua Hammerman)

AND TODAY…

Women being counted in the minyan on a regular basis is a relatively new development in Jewish law and praxis. The Reform Movement is egalitarian in all its practices; therefore, both women and men are counted toward the minyan in our worship as well as in all other forms of communal observance.

NO MINYAN? WHAT TO DO?

Contrary to popular belief, strategies and accommodations for times when fewer than 10 are present to pray did not originate with the Reform Movement! In fact, there is considerable Rabbinic discussion and debate about how to handle this situation – discussion going back well over a thousand years. Some commentators permitted one minor to count toward a minyan, others up to four minors. In some cases, a minor was acceptable as long as he grasped a chumash or Torah scroll during worship. Still others believed that it was never acceptable to count a minor. Jewish communities have always been autonomous with local ritual practice determined by local leaders and local custom. There is no universally accepted “law” regarding counting a Torah scroll, the Divine Presence or “the people Israel” toward a minyan of ten. Thus, the statement, "We're Reform. We don't need a minyan," is historically and theologically inaccurate.

To supplement my cursory on-line review of CCAR responsa cited in the comments above, I belatedly consulted Rabbi Professor Mark Washofsky's Jewish Living, subtitled A Guide to Contemporary Reform Practice -- a 2001 "Shulchan Aruch" described by Rabbi Gunther Plaut as emphasizing not what Reform Jews actually practice but rather what they ought to do.

Rabbi Washofsky says we ought to have a minyan of 10 adults. With typical (and perhaps flawed) Reform pragmatism, he also cites authorities ancient and modern that would permit leniency.

The problem with leniency is the slippery slope. With the help of Rabbis Sarason, Geringer, Washofsky, and the various contributors to ccarnet.org, I now align myself as a Wilensky-ite. Ten it is.

Larry: "Ten it is."

What then of the Jews in all the small communities with less than ten? Do they not get the full service that big community Jews get? What of Jews who travels in his or her business? Are they out of luck on the road? Why are they being penalized? What of all our soldiers, marines, and airmen who don't have the luxury of getting together with ten other Jews for prayers? Do you want to limit praying on the battlefield and at duty stations on land and sea around the world? What of Jews who work different shifts and cannot get together with ten Jews for service?

I would agree with the rabbi. This is not part of our religious beliefs as Reform Jews because its an outdated rule that is often harmful in the modern world. Reform has always encouraged more participation in prayer services while recognizing that many Orthodox Jews overdo it. Reform values prayer groups, but has not been willing to short change those who do show up when others cannot or choose not to participate. IMHO that is the better practice.

Not all geographic locations in the world have Jewish congregations that meet regularly for services, but many of them have Jews who pray daily.
I lived in Indonesia in that situation for many years.
At the moment, in Southern Spain, my nearest synagogue is two and a half hours away, but as I am a Reform Convert and that synagogue is Orthodox….I do not risk attendance.
The nearest Reform synagogue is fourteen hours away.
There are no Jews living in my town that I am aware of.

Tomorrow is Yom Kippur. I will say all the services alone but in the presence of the Knesset Yisrael, the Jewish Community which “stands at Sinai”. I will read the Torah alone and make confession for myself and all Israel. Some of the prayers will be silent, but I will not be holding my tongue on that day in the Kedusha…

I believe it is time for the minyan system to be accepted for what it is: namely a very good (and highly commendable) way to encourage community prayers and community solidarity in situations where numerous jews are to be found in geographical proximity. But for myself, and for the many other isolated Jews in this world, and for those people listed above by M.B. (on Oct 5th, 7.38pm) an insistence on a physical minyan verges on the offensive.

Wishing you Shanah Tovah and well over the fast.

Say a prayer with me…. I’ll be praying with you.
Norman
( www.jewishcontemplatives.blogspot.com )

Supplementing Ben's comment, we also need to remember that "Orthodoxy" arose as an identified option in response to the emergence of Reform.

Nor had there been a single stream prior to that time -- think back to Hillel/Shammai, move forward to discrepancies between Ashkenazic-Sephardic ritual and practice, note the (on-going) divisions between Chasidim and Mitnagdim -- and above all, remember Eilu v'eilu divrei elohim chayim, these and these are the words of the living God.

Aside from reminding us that there are legitimate options, the inclusion of the word chayim, living, reminds us of the dynamism of Judaism. Even what we call Orthodoxy, in all its shapes and permutations, adapts itself to new and changing conditions.